It sucks way worse for all those people born in 1488.

Because they’re dead.

Eh, fair enough. I was a bit rude there, but the intent is that while I agree this isn’t a super complex piece of art, I don’t think it needs to be. I would even argue that by making the message as simple as possible, it does what it sets out to do quite well, which is to physically represent the emotions of the author. Maybe they don’t match yours, but that is the subjectivity of it. I know that I would be quite dismissive of other webcomics, but I would likely dismiss it for the subject matter, and not the quality. Webcomics tend to be a fairly simple medium, so I let a lot of things pass for it.

I think you actually don’t like the message of the comic, because if you didn’t like it or thought it was lazy, you would probably move on.

For me, this comic represents my lived experience. I have had people in my life literally say “It’s just politics” and call trans people sexually deviant pedophiles at the same time. And if you haven’t had that happen to you, good for you. But I like the comic because it is simple, short, and pretty good at conveying that feeling.

Sorry if that feels lazy to you, art is subjective, but I think the message of this is pretty fucking obvious because of its simplicity.

That’s a fair point. I suppose that does put onus on people to prove their existence and experience. I can see that as frustrating, and I didn’t intend on making that statement.

The issue at hand, however, is how the OP can determine that trans people even exist, and using the existence of studies is one that is easily acceptable to most people. If your argument is that there should be no need to prove identities so long as no one is harmed, then I believe you are arguing with the wrong person, since that same sentiment was already expressed in my original reply.

Taking your stance is fine to anyone that accepts that these identities harm no one, but that in itself is obviously in contention with too many people. I will argue the easier logic until that is fixed.

I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)

I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.

where does one determine where to draw the line?

Short answer: By what the experts say, and they say transgender people should be treated as the gender they identify as. Period.

Long answer: A lot of PhDs did a fuckload of research over a century plus and showed that, yeah, gender is super fucking complicated and doesn’t map out to male/female based on your genitals at birth (let alone for the reason that, you know, maybe you might be born with a penis AND a vagina or ovaries AND testes or female chromosomes AND male genetalia, etc.), and if people get some simple gender affirmation, they live better and happier lives, and that applies to cisgender people, as well.

Easy answer: You can claim to be fucking anything you want. Who actually gives a shit? Let people be themselves if it don’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem with being a transgirl or a transboy? Why do we even have multiple bathrooms? That just seems to punish all sorts of people for no reason.

If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.

Idk, I think it’s VERY SPECIFICALLY about trans rights, but I just can put my finger on why…

I heard that’s what they did for your mom’s house.

Nobody has ever yelled at me for eating or posting a picture of my American Midwest grocery store sushi, get the fuck outta here.

The irony here is that the term cultural appropriation has been politically appropriated, the same way that many of these explorative racial theories are, like woke, like social justice, like critical race theory. They are taken from their academic settings and eventually used to suppress actual concerns raised by denegrating it and reducing it to something that is both laughable and fundamentally not what it is.

What you’re talking about is something bigger than simple novelty. It kinda sounds like depression, and that’s a lot harder to fight against than breaking routine. I mean, breaking routine helps me a little bit, but it’s certainly not the cure.

But if you want to argue there’s only a limited number of things to do for free, you can spin that the other way, too. There is only a limited number of things to buy. I dunno, that kinda makes me feel better, but I’m weird like that.

Not all new things cost money. You can walk a new way to the same places. You can find new books at the library or online. You can just do things you already do in a different way, and that can be novelty.

Unlike the current system, where healthcare becomes completely out of reach of normal people.

I don’t think it is (or at least it isn’t fully), based on the guy’s post history.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.

You could post an example and invalidate my point, but I think there’s a good reason why you didn’t.

You will never get an answer from them because the small nuggets of truth that exist in Republican talking points are then used to make batshit claims and then turned into a point of profit for some grifter somewhere.

I have yet to see the trucks with an idolized Kamala Harris holding an American flag on them or even a single article of cultwear pushed out like the MAGA hat, so the Democrats are really slacking in their zealotry.